Desh blames Bill Clinton for financial crash

[Cancel 2016.2]

how different were the decided on rules from the rules written INTO the law?


do you know?

LMAO... you don't, that much is clear. I know what the rules were that were finalized by the SEC. Those rules were EXCEPTIONS to the registration requirements. Meaning they were LESS regulation. That said, please link me up to the rules that were written in vs. the ones that the SEC approved. I would be happy to tell you what the differences mean in terms of regulation.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

https://www.icba.org/publications/index.cfm?ItemNumber=1571&sn.ItemNumber=13783


Broker/Dealer Exemption Repealed (Effective Date: May 12, 2001)

The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 specifically exempted banks from the definitions of "broker" and "dealer." Thus, prior to enactment of the GLB Act, securities activities in banks were exempt from SEC regulation and from registration with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) as a broker/dealer. The GLB Act, however, re-defines "broker" and "dealer" to include banks engaged in securities activities, subject to exceptions for the following activities and products:


But then the Bush SEC held back the definitions huh

No Desh. Until the exceptions were agreed upon, the exceptions were not in place. It was the EXCEPTIONS that were held up by the SEC.

 

[evince]

super I gave you a list of prosecutions by the Obama SEC .

Now go get the prosecutions for these crimes under Bush.

why do you refuse to produce them?

 

[evince]

If what you say is REAL then there should be cases for you to present to PROVE it

 

[evince]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-has-the-usag-dropped-the-ball/


Under Bush bank prosecutions went down 87%

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

If what you say is REAL then there should be cases for you to present to PROVE it

Just because you stomp your feet and make a claim, that doesn't make it a valid one. The FACT is that the rules we are discussing were EXEMPTIONS to the rules. Meaning they deregulated further. The SEC prosecution has nothing to do with that FACT.

 

[evince]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/security-fraud-prosecutions-down-87-since-2000/


why did it plummet if what you claim is true super duper?

 

[evince]

if the laws were in place like you claim why was there LESS prosecutions?

 

[evince]

Just because you stomp your feet and make a claim, that doesn't make it a valid one. The FACT is that the rules we are discussing were EXEMPTIONS to the rules. Meaning they deregulated further. The SEC prosecution has nothing to do with that FACT.

your the one stomping your feet asshole


Im bringing you facts

 

[canceled.2021.1]

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/why-has-the-usag-dropped-the-ball/


Under Bush bank prosecutions went down 87%

and people making less than $2000 a year in 1950 paid 20% in marginal federal income tax

 

[evince]

Note that the failure to implement the bank broker rules in GLBact resulted with an 87% drop in these types of prosecutions by Bush SEC.



it is just what I say it is and you know it